I just saw a piece on MSNBC, repeat of Rachael Meadow show, where the guy was going over how Obama keeps moving to the right of Simpson-Boles while Boner keeps moving further right as well and then people go on air and say it's both sides, when in fact it is not. If Obama had the balls(that Hilary does) he would put an all defense cut/tax increase budget with a bit of stimulus on the Senate floor and make the GOP stand and fight it.

The real test will come with the debt limit, will he buckle to the GOP demands and give them everything they want or is he willing to default? I think that's a close call, I hope that he just pays the bills and lets them take him to court.

HJ 88
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. J. RES. 88
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 15, 2011
Mr. MCGOVERN introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to clarify the authority of Congress and the States to regulate corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:
Article--Section 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons.

`Section 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution.

`Section 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people's rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are inalienable.'.

Taxing the rich must fail!! If the list of companies cutting employment simply after Obama got re-elected was big, what kind of economic boom do you expect to see after falling off the cliff? do you guys expect to eat the rich as long as they are around? My guess, a lot of them will bail, and good for them!!!

I looked at one ( that I used to own stock in )
Bristol-Myers to slash 480 sales-related jobs in NJ
Cuts follow a series of bad-news events for the drugmakerNovember 6, 2012 By Tracy Staton
Bristol-Myers Squibb ($BMY) is following up its lackluster third-quarter results with almost 480 layoffs. As Pharmalot reports, the company notified the New Jersey government that it would scale back in Plainsboro, which means the cuts will hit its sales operations.

The exact number of jobs to be cut, according to the state notification, is 479, Pharmalot reports. The Plainsboro facility mostly revolves around training and administrative support for the sales force.

Bristol-Myers is, of course, not alone in announcing
layoffs and cutbacks recently. obviously Obama's fault
The most high-profile job-cutting plans are Sanofi's ($SNY) in France, where officials have not only publicly denounced the cuts but persuaded the company to rewind at least some of them. Other Big Pharmas with hundreds of cuts in the news recently include Abbott Laboratories ($ABT) (550 across several business units), Pfizer ($PFE) (300, mostly in sales) and Johnson & Johnson ($JNJ) (130 in Alzheimer's R&D).

I imagine you are happy. If the tables were turned I would be happy too.
I don't particularly like Boehner and I do not agree with the compromise approach.
I simply do not agree with Obama's "fair share" approach. And I do not like the direction the country is going. Nothing personal against our leader, but playing nice and sharing a beer with him probably will not get things done.
Lets go over the cliff and let the Tea Party take over for the Republicans and lets see what happens

I previously piddled around with some numbers. If the top 1% were to be taxed at 50%, that would bring in around $2.1 trillion. Hell, that won't even come close to bridging the current budget deficit ($172 billion in November alone), not to mention the $16+ trillion debt.
Cuts have to be made, or if nothing else, freeze spending. The only cuts talked about by the White House will not happen for several years.
You want a level playing field? flat tax rate, across the board, while wiping all but 1 page of the tax code.
How is France doing with their high-income tax rate?

Not bad, give me some more data. Where is the 300 billion in growth going to come from?
Is that 300 billion from the wealthy going to be in the first year?
Will that be projected to be constant for the next decade?
Estimated budget deficit is, of course, presuming that Washington can actually pass a budget.
And it does nothing about the debt.
How about entitlement cuts; through a streamlining of the health care system? I would like to see $100 in medical spending actually provide twice the health care that it does now.
I wonder how much revenue would be brought in by increasing the taxpaying base - the number of households that actually pay a tax?

Healthcare.? We've created lotsa savings with the ACA, we only need to put in a public option and we'll be saving hundreds of Billions annually.

$300B from the wealthy net year and every year. Unless those greedy selfish motherfucker fuckers complain. Then we ramp it up to $400B.
And of course it will increease because we will have more wealthy people.

$300B growth is a natural outgrowth of getting the financial house in order. And that will build on itself. Don'tcha know nuthin 'bout economics?

There was a huge boom in jobs when the tax rates we will going to were first set in 1993, 23 million jobs in eight years, we haven't had nearly that many created since we cut taxes in 2001, so I would say if we want more jobs better go to the 1993 tax rates.

Though one must accept the reality, and even though I wish it wasn't so, we really need to add say 5% to the Clinton rates for incomes from $250,000 to $1,000,000 and 10% over $1,000,000 that would bring the top rate to 49.5% and those that pay it should get out of bed every day and kiss the ground and thank God they live in America.

Naive on DKA's part to think that there would actually be cuts to military spending or that tax cuts for the wealthy would cease, let alone that, the population would get involved as a result. That is what I meant. Not as a slight to DKA, because what it takes to awaken the public will require more than just a 30 second blurp on MSM.